/I'd like to see a major candidate run on serious campaign reforms but with the Dems being worried about holding on to seats and (at least parts of) the GOP actively trying to dismantle democracy in the US, I don't hold out much hope.

If you are going to have a utopian hope for reform in campaign finance you might as well go big and wish for open primaries with the top three vote winners competing in the general. No party caucus or primary and the top three getting a limited amount of public funds and severe restriction on soft money. It would allow the views, desires and wishes of 60% of the US population to be represented in politics instead of just the fringe the current primary system produces.

Set up a web site where every candidate lists his positions.Hold a series of publicly funded debates and Q&A sessions where the candidates clarify those positions for those who need them.Ban all paid campaign advertising.

/I'd like to see a major candidate run on serious campaign reforms but with the Dems being worried about holding on to seats and (at least parts of) the GOP actively trying to dismantle democracy in the US, I don't hold out much hope.

Citizens United has pretty much killed any hope for campaign finance reform for the foreseeable future. Even if you passed a law saying that candidates could only use public funds and preset media appearances it wouldn't matter because most of the campaigning would just be handled by private groups that can spend unlimited amounts on whatever they want.

dwrash:Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)... does it really matter?... just blame the money I guess.

[dailycaller.com image 600x829]

This is more important to me than campaign funding.

People really need to put "gather information" in there before that last step. Voting on an issue you don't understand, or voting for a candidate just because he has your favorite letter next to his name, is worse than not voting at all.

Call me a cynical bastard, but I came to realize that it all really doesn't farking matter. I mean, seriously. Sure, the Democrats are going to go a little bit to the left, the Republicans, when they were actually still sane, went a little to the right, but while their pet issues can be brought up and made into political theater, not a single thing from either party has ever been done that seriously does anything to hinder big business. Only one dem has even tried going after banks to my knowledge, Liz Warren, and her investigations apparently go nowhere.

We have a multi-billion-dollar "war on drugs" and you have almost everyone in the country either neutral or against it, and yet it continues. Why, unless to justify the spending, and to continue to keep the illegal markets artificially inflated?

And while we're all sitting around biatching and moaning about gun control and Obamacare, both sides are lining their pockets coming and going, while the American People get screwed in the middle. I could turn this into a rant about exactly how farked up society is as a whole, but I suspect that I wouldn't need to. I may also get blasted for saying this, but at this point, I think I'd almost rather have some major cataclysm happen, clean the clocks of most of the established nations, and give us a chance to start over with something better, because the way we're going now, I give it maybe 20 years before we're right back to workhouses, company scrip, and slave wages for the working class.

It was a good article, but I'm more interested in the fact that China hacked the agency responsible for determining whether China was buying our elections. If you start with that, don't leave me hanging, because it sounds like a pretty big deal.

Evil High Priest:balthan: dwrash: Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)

I agree. We should have a (free) national ID and national voting standards.

Right. Because the very worst of the corruption and abuse in our election laws occurs at the individual voter level.

Oh please. You speak as if somehow we weren't given the candidates that were washed and scrubbed and vetted and given the approval by the corporations.

The only thing that's disrupted this status quo is the tea party, and that being basically due to a bunch of middle class older folks getting together to biatch about taxes and entitlements that Rush Limbaugh decried being taken over and used as a vehicle for the ultra-christian right to gain power.

Evil High Priest:balthan: dwrash: Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)

I agree. We should have a (free) national ID and national voting standards.

Right. Because the very worst of the corruption and abuse in our election laws occurs at the individual voter level.

Hey, he's just following the script. If someone brings up real problems with our election system he's programmed to divert the discussion into Voter ID laws. That's a much safer topic because no matter which way it goes it doesn't threaten big money donors.

Kit Fister:Call me a cynical bastard, but I came to realize that it all really doesn't farking matter. I mean, seriously. Sure, the Democrats are going to go a little bit to the left, the Republicans, when they were actually still sane, went a little to the right, but while their pet issues can be brought up and made into political theater, not a single thing from either party has ever been done that seriously does anything to hinder big business. Only one dem has even tried going after banks to my knowledge, Liz Warren, and her investigations apparently go nowhere.

That's such a facile argument.

Democrats may not be the socialists that Republicans make them out to be, but they are far more aggressive at policing corporations than Republicans.

Case and point would be the Republican opposition to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or how they refuse to allow anyone to be confirmed to the NLRB (which is why there's a big lawsuit over Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB). .

dwrash:Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)... does it really matter?... just blame the money I guess.

[dailycaller.com image 600x829]

This is more important to me than campaign funding.

Tell you what:Make ID's free in the US, like in South AfricaMake it a federal ID and not give any states power to hinder the process, like in South AfricaAnd stop the Republican party from deliberately making it hard to get id's in poor/minority/Democratic areas.

eurotrader:If you are going to have a utopian hope for reform in campaign finance you might as well go big and wish for open primaries with the top three vote winners competing in the general. No party caucus or primary and the top three getting a limited amount of public funds and severe restriction on soft money. It would allow the views, desires and wishes of 60% of the US population to be represented in politics instead of just the fringe the current primary system produces.

Three words: Instant. Runoff. Voting.

Also: we could try what England does and limit campaigning to just a few months before the election. That would cut down on spending.

Satanic_Hamster:dwrash: Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)... does it really matter?... just blame the money I guess.

[dailycaller.com image 600x829]

This is more important to me than campaign funding.

Tell you what:Make ID's free in the US, like in South AfricaMake it a federal ID and not give any states power to hinder the process, like in South AfricaAnd stop the Republican party from deliberately making it hard to get id's in poor/minority/Democratic areas.

thornhill:Kit Fister: Call me a cynical bastard, but I came to realize that it all really doesn't farking matter. I mean, seriously. Sure, the Democrats are going to go a little bit to the left, the Republicans, when they were actually still sane, went a little to the right, but while their pet issues can be brought up and made into political theater, not a single thing from either party has ever been done that seriously does anything to hinder big business. Only one dem has even tried going after banks to my knowledge, Liz Warren, and her investigations apparently go nowhere.

That's such a facile argument.

Democrats may not be the socialists that Republicans make them out to be, but they are far more aggressive at policing corporations than Republicans.

Case and point would be the Republican opposition to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or how they refuse to allow anyone to be confirmed to the NLRB (which is why there's a big lawsuit over Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB). .

I'd like to believe that's true, however I'm cynical and distrusting enough to believe that they'd pay it lip service and still find ways of not quite standing up to big business.

Satanic_Hamster:dwrash: Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)... does it really matter?... just blame the money I guess.

[dailycaller.com image 600x829]

This is more important to me than campaign funding.

Tell you what:Make ID's free in the US, like in South AfricaMake it a federal ID and not give any states power to hinder the process, like in South AfricaAnd stop the Republican party from deliberately making it hard to get id's in poor/minority/Democratic areas.

Satanic_Hamster:dwrash: Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)... does it really matter?... just blame the money I guess.

[dailycaller.com image 600x829]

This is more important to me than campaign funding.

Tell you what:Make ID's free in the US, like in South AfricaMake it a federal ID and not give any states power to hinder the process, like in South AfricaAnd stop the Republican party from deliberately making it hard to get id's in poor/minority/Democratic areas.

Until those happen, go fark yourself.

Next thing you'll suggest is not allowing the office of government IDs to only open after 10am on Tuesdays and Thursdays so the non-old people can go get one! Freaking commie, you are!

fusillade762:eurotrader: If you are going to have a utopian hope for reform in campaign finance you might as well go big and wish for open primaries with the top three vote winners competing in the general. No party caucus or primary and the top three getting a limited amount of public funds and severe restriction on soft money. It would allow the views, desires and wishes of 60% of the US population to be represented in politics instead of just the fringe the current primary system produces.

Three words: Instant. Runoff. Voting.

Also: we could try what England does and limit campaigning to just a few months before the election. That would cut down on spending.

Two cable "news" networks would have to consider going to reporting news if the 6 weeks election ever came to the US. If the US Constitution did not state term length , the brit and other versions of being able to call an election by having a no confidence vote would be a humorous to have in the US. If the election cycle ever got to just 6 months I would be happy. After being elected they are supposed to do this thing called governance, it has been years since that happen.

LordJiro:Satanic_Hamster: dwrash: Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)... does it really matter?... just blame the money I guess.

[dailycaller.com image 600x829]

This is more important to me than campaign funding.

Tell you what:Make ID's free in the US, like in South AfricaMake it a federal ID and not give any states power to hinder the process, like in South AfricaAnd stop the Republican party from deliberately making it hard to get id's in poor/minority/Democratic areas.

Until those happen, go fark yourself.

But a national ID is an affront to our FREEDOMS!

I love how many derp sites are posting that pic of Mandela and the fact that South Africa requires ID to vote wihtout mentioning those facts.

dwrash:Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)... does it really matter?... just blame the money I guess.

This is more important to me than campaign funding.

We care enough about the number of times that people vote to investigate it. The Bush Administration spent over five years searching for voter fraud. Investigators were pressured to find voter fraud. They found nothing that would affect election results. Big money does, however, influence elections. What does all this mean? Well, that you're wrong about everything.

(Oh, and your picture - you do realize that the South African government paid for the IDs. I can only assume that you are agitating for free government voter IDs here in the United States. Otherwise, one might get the idea that you are more interested in repressing the vote, and that is a type of voter fraud that has been shown to influence elections.)

or maybe not. Maybe we don't want a common sense change, like Voter Id.Even the esteemed Mandela got it.

change is hard

And what Mandela got were free government issued IDs with no political party influence on the issuing of said IDs in certain areas. Which is exactly what the US will never have, because "socialisiminims".

Also: we could try what England does and limit campaigning to just a few months before the election. That would cut down on spending.

I'd also like to see representatives elected at the state level through popular voting. So, if a state has 10 representatives, each party can put up to 10 candidates on the ballot. If 60% of people vote Republican, 30% Democrat, and 10% vote Libertarian, they get 6, 3, and 1 representatives respectively.

You've eliminated the problem of gerrymandering and created the opportunity for third-party representation in one go.

or maybe not. Maybe we don't want a common sense change, like Voter Id.Even the esteemed Mandela got it.

change is hard

All voting in my jurisdiction is by mail. No ID, just a signature which is compared to the signature on file. No fuss, no muss, and no hidden poll tax (if you don't want to buy a stamp, you can drop off your ballot at a number of government locations such as libraries and courthouses). Welcome to your future.

Kit Fister:Call me a cynical bastard, but I came to realize that it all really doesn't farking matter. I mean, seriously. Sure, the Democrats are going to go a little bit to the left, the Republicans, when they were actually still sane, went a little to the right, but while their pet issues can be brought up and made into political theater, not a single thing from either party has ever been done that seriously does anything to hinder big business. Only one dem has even tried going after banks to my knowledge, Liz Warren, and her investigations apparently go nowhere.

We have a multi-billion-dollar "war on drugs" and you have almost everyone in the country either neutral or against it, and yet it continues. Why, unless to justify the spending, and to continue to keep the illegal markets artificially inflated?

And while we're all sitting around biatching and moaning about gun control and Obamacare, both sides are lining their pockets coming and going, while the American People get screwed in the middle. I could turn this into a rant about exactly how farked up society is as a whole, but I suspect that I wouldn't need to. I may also get blasted for saying this, but at this point, I think I'd almost rather have some major cataclysm happen, clean the clocks of most of the established nations, and give us a chance to start over with something better, because the way we're going now, I give it maybe 20 years before we're right back to workhouses, company scrip, and slave wages for the working class.

/Government for the rich, by the rich, on the backs of the people.

Are you a straight man? Probably white?

"Both sides are exactly the same!" is definitely wrong if you're gay or a woman.

Also: we could try what England does and limit campaigning to just a few months before the election. That would cut down on spending.

I'd also like to see representatives elected at the state level through popular voting. So, if a state has 10 representatives, each party can put up to 10 candidates on the ballot. If 60% of people vote Republican, 30% Democrat, and 10% vote Libertarian, they get 6, 3, and 1 representatives respectively.

You've eliminated the problem of gerrymandering and created the opportunity for third-party representation in one go.

I think what you've just described is a parliamentary system (which I wouldn't really have a problem with).

ScreamingHangover:Why don't we just simply put the various elected offices up for sale to the highest bidder on eBay, then apply the generated revenue to pay off the debt? It can't be worse than what we have now.

Kit Fister:Evil High Priest: balthan: dwrash: Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)

I agree. We should have a (free) national ID and national voting standards.

Right. Because the very worst of the corruption and abuse in our election laws occurs at the individual voter level.

Oh please. You speak as if somehow we weren't given the candidates that were washed and scrubbed and vetted and given the approval by the corporations.

The only thing that's disrupted this status quo is the tea party, and that being basically due to a bunch of middle class older folks getting together to biatch about taxes and entitlements that Rush Limbaugh decried being taken over and used as a vehicle for the ultra-christian right to gain power.

It's kind of like how the courts are backed up because judges are not being confirmed creating a shortage of judges and in some cases with a lack of funding, are hindering government prosecutions. This allows the super wealthy with high priced lawyers to be able to "outgun" government prosecutors while still allowing the government to prosecute the "poor".

dwrash:Since we don't really care who votes (or how many times they vote)...

I'm unaware of actual voters voting multiple times. This seems to be a fear on the level with the being scared of Santa Claus. Actual factual voter fraud appears to happen much higher up the food chain.

How long do you think it will take for those dyed in the derp to realize that the companies that rent out all those politicians to say there's no money for hiring could hire people were they not blowing money on renting politicians to say there's no money for hiring?

Oh, right. As soon as they say something to themselves like, "Oh, it's not states' rights that was the issue of the Civil War, but rather the egregious claim that people had a right to own human beings as private property."

EyeballKid:How long do you think it will take for those dyed in the derp to realize that the companies that rent out all those politicians to say there's no money for hiring could hire people were they not blowing money on renting politicians to say there's no money for hiring?

Oh, right. As soon as they say something to themselves like, "Oh, it's not states' rights that was the issue of the Civil War, but rather the egregious claim that people had a right to own human beings as private property."

If everyone could focus on the easy issues, say election reform or financial reform, that 90% of the country agrees on, we could get something done. They can pour money into campaigns, but all it takes is for the citizens to vote the assholes out of office to nullify that. We are too busy being divided by gay marriage, the War on Drugs, gun control, abortion, or any number of emotionally charged issues that will NEVER be resolved and have NO bearing on 80% of the citizens in this country. Easy stuff first, hard stuff later. Basic management.

Who do you think keeps all that bullshiat in the public eye while the banks and companies walk away with trillions?

AngryDragon:We are too busy being divided by gay marriage, the War on Drugs, gun control, abortion, or any number of emotionally charged issues that will NEVER be resolved and have NO bearing on 80% of the citizens in this country.

There's an entire political movement that's led by entertainers. They don't care about good governance or finding solutions, they stoke outrage for ratings. And they're apparently very good at their jobs.